Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Opinion on billionaires.

Options
1…567911

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,568 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Its clearly obvious my agenda is to become the ruler of the universe, might as well take the p1ss, with use of words such as 'agenda'!

    I’m not accusing you of pushing an agenda - but blindly trusting everything you read on twitter without doing any critical checking of easily probable or disprovable claims means you’re very likely to be taken in by someone who is peddling an agenda.

    Wolff is a hardline proponent of Marxian theory - he’s not immune to twisting things to suit that worldview. Especially when using mediums such as twitter or YouTube, where he doesn’t have to worry about pesky things like fact-checks or peer-review


  • Options
    #243
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    blackwhite wrote:
    I’m not accusing you of pushing an agenda - but blindly trusting everything you read on twitter without doing any critical checking of easily probable or disprovable claims means you’re very likely to be taken in by someone who is peddling an agenda.


    I'm sorry to inform you, but all humans, including wolff, you and me, are predisposition to inherent and confirmation bias, there's virtually no facts here, folks such as wolff generally research data intensely before relating them, this is of course, what such professionals do, it's also important to realise data itself is exposed to these biases, so finding facts can be extremely difficult under such conditions, all schools of economic thought are therefore also exposed to these biases, including neoclassical


  • Options
    #244
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,568 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    I'm sorry to inform you, but all humans, including wolff, you and me, are predisposition to inherent and confirmation bias, there's virtually no facts here, folks such as wolff generally research data intensely before relating them, this is of course, what such professionals do, it's also important to realise data itself is exposed to these biases, so finding facts can be extremely difficult under such conditions, all schools of economic thought are therefore also exposed to these biases, including neoclassical

    Fully agreed that all economic thought has bias - but peddling lies about how Amazon derives it’s profitability is easily disproven by actual facts (I.e. the actual numbers that have been reported and audited).
    There’s a difference between opinions on the cause and consequence, and the basic facts of what the numbers are.


  • Options
    #245
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    blackwhite wrote:
    Fully agreed that all economic thought has bias - but peddling lies about how Amazon derives it’s profitability is easily disproven by actual facts (I.e. the actual numbers that have been reported and audited). There’s a difference between opinions on the cause and consequence, and the basic facts of what the numbers are.


    Again, professionals such as wolff generally don't peddle such lies, they realise the are being closely monitored, and theyre generally number geeks anyway, this is what they do, so there must be some reason why he has made such a statement, the unfortunate thing is, I ll probably never figure it out, so that leaves it answered for myself. unfortunately numbers themselves can be manipulated, unintentionally, due to these biases, I have experienced this myself while running data analysis, and the details of financial data from large corporations is murky to say the least, you d have to wonder, does anyone truly understand what's going on within these organisations, due to their complexities. I'm not anti corporation at all, I do realise some of the benefits they bring to society, but you can be damn sure, trickle down certainly isn't occuring within these organisations, as we believed it would.


  • Options
    #246
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ush wrote: »
    The biggest threat democracy has ever faced. Communism wasn't even close. If anything, it spurred western elites to accept universal suffrage and the welfare state. The threat was always unbridled capitalism. We're regressing into some kind of feodalism. We're beyond capitalism now. Actual capital isn't the currency anymore. Its data. And the direction, without regulation, is toward oligopol/cartels. Always has been. At least feudal lords had some sense of social responsibility.

    Democracy.... I'm not sure democracy ever existed, the way that people nowadays tend to consider it to be. The people generally have very little actual power to influence the workings of government. Sure, they can vote in another government during the next election, but invariably, the choices are rather limited, and become more limited as time goes by. Government policies, and laws tend to be brought about by organs that the electorate have no direct influence over, and so, Democracy? Err.. nah. I became disillusioned with the idea of democracy decades ago, and nothing I've seen since has made me feel that it's anything more than marketing spin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    ush
    Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Democracy.... I'm not sure democracy ever existed, the way that people nowadays tend to consider it to be. The people generally have very little actual power to influence the workings of government. Sure, they can vote in another government during the next election, but invariably, the choices are rather limited, and become more limited as time goes by. Government policies, and laws tend to be brought about by organs that the electorate have no direct influence over, and so, Democracy? Err.. nah. I became disillusioned with the idea of democracy decades ago, and nothing I've seen since has made me feel that it's anything more than marketing spin.

    So you're disillusioned with representative democracy. Fine. What we're lacking is economic democracy. Thats the real cause of your alienation.


  • Options
    #248
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Deleted User wrote:
    Democracy.... I'm not sure democracy ever existed, the way that people nowadays tend to consider it to be. The people generally have very little actual power to influence the workings of government. Sure, they can vote in another government during the next election, but invariably, the choices are rather limited, and become more limited as time goes by. Government policies, and laws tend to be brought about by organs that the electorate have no direct influence over, and so, Democracy? Err.. nah. I became disillusioned with the idea of democracy decades ago, and nothing I've seen since has made me feel that it's anything more than marketing spin.


    I actually agree with this, and I believe we actually don't have democracy, and we re tending away from it over time, the only way I can currently describe what we may have is a highly erratic, complex and dysfunctional form of plutocracy, which is operating under the guise of democracy, I'm sure I ll alter that over time, its ultimately a creation of our own mistakes, failures and none acceptance of our reality. our political institutions have effectively become ineffectual in regards critical changes urgently needed, rendering voting almost useless.


  • Options
    #249
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Again, professionals such as wolff generally don't peddle such lies, they realise the are being closely monitored, and theyre generally number geeks anyway, this is what they do, so there must be some reason why he has made such a statement, the unfortunate thing is, I ll probably never figure it out, so that leaves it answered for myself. unfortunately numbers themselves can be manipulated, unintentionally, due to these biases, I have experienced this myself while running data analysis, and the details of financial data from large corporations is murky to say the least, you d have to wonder, does anyone truly understand what's going on within these organisations, due to their complexities. I'm not anti corporation at all, I do realise some of the benefits they bring to society, but you can be damn sure, trickle down certainly isn't occuring within these organisations, as we believed it would.

    He linked to documents which show what he's saying is correct.

    You're saying a bigger boy told me otherwise. See the difference?


  • Options
    #250
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Ush1 wrote: »
    He linked to documents which show what he's saying is correct.

    You're saying a bigger boy told me otherwise. See the difference?

    no, i dont, and yes, i do, its important to remember such events as the panama and Paradise papers, we potential could be at the point, theres no real facts, and we dont truly understand whats going on within these complex institutions and their workings, theres a possibility nobody truly knows the full facts, including the corporations themselves

    the so called 'bigger boy' :confused:, is actually a respected commentator, but has his own inherent biases, such as ourselves, these errr emm 'bigger boys' tend to be numbers geeks, and generally tend not to make statements without some sort of data analysis, to support these statements


  • Options
    #251
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    no, i dont, and yes, i do, its important to remember such events as the panama and Paradise papers, we potential could be at the point, theres no real facts, and we dont truly understand whats going on within these complex institutions and their workings, theres a possibility nobody truly knows the full facts, including the corporations themselves

    the so called 'bigger boy' :confused:, is actually a respected commentator, but has his own inherent biases, such as ourselves, these errr emm 'bigger boys' tend to be numbers geeks, and generally tend not to make statements without some sort of data analysis, to support these statements

    I've said it to you before and I'll say it again, go out for a walk mate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I've said it to you before and I'll say it again, go out for a walk mate.

    dont worry, im heading to work soon, tis all good! but the reality is, theres a possibility both of us are in fact wrong in this context, one of us might just be more wrong than the other, and currently that looks to be me,but.....!


  • Options
    #253
    ush
    Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    The ”big boy” argument can also be applied to someone citing stockholders as arbitrators of a company’s actual value. A whole decade of QE later and nothing is valued for its actual performance or worth. The winners in such circumstances are companies that promise investors near monopol status. Regulate them. Break them up. If not for the sake of democracy, then for the planet. The necessary shift in our societies will be opposed at every turn by billionaire’s self-interest.


  • Options
    #254
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,944 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ush wrote: »
    The ”big boy” argument can also be applied to someone citing stockholders as arbitrators of a company’s actual value. A whole decade of QE later and nothing is valued for its actual performance or worth. The winners in such circumstances are companies that promise investors near monopol status. Regulate them. Break them up. If not for the sake of democracy, then for the planet. The necessary shift in our societies will be opposed at every turn by billionaire’s self-interest.

    great points, theres clearly something fundamentally failing, particularly in relation to wealth distribution, globally, and large corporations such as amazon, are playing a critical role in these failings, but, we dont truly understand exactly how this is occurring. i personally believe its important to de-personalize such arguments, as our reality is far more complex than the accumulation of individuals wealth such as bezos etc. i believe it is true that all or most humans, are in fact self interested, including myself, but we also have a strong need and want for collective action also, i.e. both statements are in fact true, at the same time, and i think large corporations such as amazon are in fact perfect examples of this belief, this wont be easy to solve, but it needs to be, and quickly


  • Options
    #255
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    I never get the concept of " sharing" wealth. Such bullshít.

    Put it this way, entrepreneurs are only in it for the money, hence the exploitation of labour. Please get over it.

    You don’t understand the concept of sharing??!

    When my kids were 2 I had to teach them to share, they need to be reminded every now and then but they understand the concept


  • Options
    #256
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    I never get the concept of " sharing" wealth. Such bullshít.

    Put it this way, entrepreneurs are only in it for the money, hence the exploitation of labour. Please get over it.

    What exactly do you think workers are in it for?


  • Options
    #257
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    BBDBB wrote: »
    I read something on the internet (so it must be true!) recently that made me stop and start to pay more heed to the billionaires in the world and what they do with their money

    For a bit of perspective

    A million seconds takes about 11 days to pass

    A billion seconds takes over 31 years to pass

    11 days versus 31 years!

    Most of us have occasionally dreamed about winning the lottery and how much we'd need to change our lives, how many million we'd need and how we'd start to spread around a bit amongst family and friends and how we'd support a few charitable works. Even then you'd be living off the interest for the rest of your life. But billionaires is just off the scale of comprehension

    Yep, and the way things are going we’ll see the first euro trillionaires before the minimum wage in Ireland reaches 15 euros an hour

    The minimum wage is currently about €10 An hour. It would take someone 50 years working full time to earn 1 million euros
    50 thousand years to earn 1 billion euros, 50 million years to earn a Trillion euros, but the global political and economic system is so unbalanced now that one man is now capable of adding multiple billions of euros of wealth a year to his net worth while billions of people struggle to put food and water on their tables

    Bezos ‘earned‘ his first billion in 1997. He now has 200 billion. On average that’s over 8 billion a year, but in practice his rate of increase is getting faster, probably closer to a billion a month now. How much has he donated to charity in that time?

    The correct word for this is obscene


  • Options
    #258
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BBDBB wrote: »
    I read something on the internet (so it must be true!) recently that made me stop and start to pay more heed to the billionaires in the world and what they do with their money

    For a bit of perspective

    A million seconds takes about 11 days to pass

    A billion seconds takes over 31 years to pass

    11 days versus 31 years!

    Most of us have occasionally dreamed about winning the lottery and how much we'd need to change our lives, how many million we'd need and how we'd start to spread around a bit amongst family and friends and how we'd support a few charitable works. Even then you'd be living off the interest for the rest of your life. But billionaires is just off the scale of comprehension

    And given that Bezos is racing toward a trillion dollars...

    A trillion seconds is almost 32,000 years.


  • Options
    #259
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    It has been the part time occupation of the disenfranchised for centuries, there really is nothing to see here.

    Most rioters are in it for the riot rather than the protest which they are supposed to be there for. People do be into throwing stuff around and burning a few bins. In France protest is like a cultural pastime, it has become perennial rather than a catalyst for radical change. In fact if it is radical change you are after you should be asking the billionaires, they are the ones ahead of the game. Most French businesses factor in industrial disputes as a cost in their annual budgets, it just gets dumped and indexed linked into inflation, they expect it to happen.

    "Déficit éventuel des conflits industriels" - You see French billionaires are proactive about getting it done, they need to be.

    Which is all fine (for them) until it reaches a point where the Guillotines come out of storage


  • Options
    #260
    ush
    Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    The concentration of wealth is unsustainable. So its not solely a moral argument about ”sharing”. Its a practical argument about social cohesion and international peace. The kind of inequality that capitalism creates eventually requires authoritarianism; if only to police the army of the underemployed. It gets messy.

    Billionaires hoard. That’s basically what they are, hoarders. Millionaires may take risks to get more money. But billionaires are ultimately defensive in their mindset. So they’ll rig the market to their advantage and to society’s disadvantage. Innovation is harmed by the billionaire class. Is Elon Musk that creative?

    The kind of inequality we see today is matched by pre-world war periods. People instinctively know something is out of synch. So far many have latched onto crank right-wing ideas to ease their minds. Trump and Brexit fall into this category. Both are ready made by economic interests to misdirect attention.

    In short, billionaires act as a brake on innovation and extreme inequality makes us dangerous.


  • Options
    #261
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Javon Young Harvester wrote: »
    What a ridiculous and idiotic suggestion. If people make billions they deserve it and should not have it stolen from then by idiotic tax systems suggested by some. Communist Russia would be a pleasure compared to some of the suggestion I see people here make.

    How about you think about the combined tax paid by everyone employed by a billionaire who would not be paying it was it not for them starting the company, the hundreds of thousands of people who live good lives and spend money in their communities all because the company they work for was founded and made a success by the founder. Billionaires pay millions in income tax and many more millions in other taxes such as vat or the equivalent etc. Wanting to take their money is just pure rotten begrudgery.

    What is actually idiotic is the idea that a billionaire would not be motivated to ‘create jobs’ if he was only worth 900 million instead of a billion


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Akrasia wrote: »
    What is actually idiotic is the idea that a billionaire would not be motivated to ‘create jobs’ if he was only worth 900 million instead of a billion

    Who are you to decide to put some arbitrary cap on someone elses ambitions?


  • Options
    #263
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    ush wrote: »
    The concentration of wealth is unsustainable. So its not solely a moral argument about ”sharing”. Its a practical argument about social cohesion and international peace. The kind of inequality that capitalism creates eventually requires authoritarianism; if only to police the army of the underemployed. It gets messy.

    Billionaires hoard. That’s basically what they are, hoarders. Millionaires may take risks to get more money. But billionaires are ultimately defensive in their mindset. So they’ll rig the market to their advantage and to society’s disadvantage. Innovation is harmed by the billionaire class. Is Elon Musk that creative?

    The kind of inequality we see today is matched by pre-world war periods. People instinctively know something is out of synch. So far many have latched onto crank right-wing ideas to ease their minds. Trump and Brexit fall into this category. Both are ready made by economic interests to misdirect attention.

    In short, billionaires act as a brake on innovation and extreme inequality makes us dangerous.

    Please study basic economics for 1 hour, just 1 please.

    Have a look at the "factors of production".

    If you take an interest in why humans bother their barney to do anything with their lives you might come to recognise that entrepreneurship is actually a real thing.

    Your concept ( highly flawed one I will add ) that billionaires act as a brake on innovation makes no sense.


  • Options
    #264
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Which is all fine (for them) until it reaches a point where the Guillotines come out of storage

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that capital punishment is no longer legal in France? Article 66-1.

    So unless they start breaking the law they will not get the opportunity again. As salivating an idea as you might find it.

    Anyone setting up execution devices in France would likely end up in prison. The current regime in France are very paranoid about any extremist groups ( ie Le Pen & co ) who are advocating the reinstatement of capital punishment. What i am not so sure about is if they must hold a referendum to change their constitution, do you know?


  • Options
    #265
    ush
    Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Please study basic economics for 1 hour, just 1 please.

    Have a look at the "factors of production".

    If you take an interest in why humans bother their barney to do anything with their lives you might come to recognise that entrepreneurship is actually a real thing.

    Your concept ( highly flawed one I will add ) that billionaires act as a brake on innovation makes no sense.

    I studied economic history. The classic factors of production are land, labour & capital. So if you were to study the history of economic thought you'd see that the factors of production aren't "set". If you think the factors are fixed then you've studied too much economics. Study to challenge your assumptions, not reinforce them.

    Sure, entrepreneurship exists. Some people are innovators. Some people genuinely love their craft and are more like artisans. Thats all good. But the billionaire class is something different. Once they get ahead, they want to stay there. The classic example are the robber barons. Free markets lead to cartels and oligopoly, not competition. They abuse their dominant position and start to seek rent rather than innovate. Economies where rent seeking dominates stagnate.


  • Options
    #266
    ush
    Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that capital punishment is no longer legal in France? Article 66-1.

    So unless they start breaking the law they will not get the opportunity again. As salivating an idea as you might find it.

    Anyone setting up execution devices in France would likely end up in prison. The current regime in France are very paranoid about any extremist groups ( ie Le Pen & co ) who are advocating the reinstatement of capital punishment. What i am not so sure about is if they must hold a referendum to change their constitution, do you know?

    And here was me thinking revolutions were legal. The revolution will not be legalised.

    PS

    The problem with the french is they have no word for entrepreneur.


  • Options
    #267
    ush
    Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Who are you to decide to put some arbitrary cap on someone elses ambitions?

    Who are we to deny basic human dignity to hundreds of millions living in poverty?


  • Options
    #268
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    I guess anyone richer than I am is obviously a scheming B'stard and anyone poorer is a workshy lazybones.


    Then again two guys I knew well who worked with the funds of the ultra rich said that they were to a man or woman obsessive and unpleasant individuals. I said surely some were alright but was told after a short pause no none!


  • Options
    #269
    Mr Meanor
    Registered Users Posts: 197 ✭✭Mr Meanor


    ush wrote: »
    The concentration of wealth is unsustainable. So its not solely a moral argument about ”sharing”. Its a practical argument about social cohesion and international peace. The kind of inequality that capitalism creates eventually requires authoritarianism; if only to police the army of the underemployed. It gets messy.

    Billionaires hoard. That’s basically what they are, hoarders. Millionaires may take risks to get more money. But billionaires are ultimately defensive in their mindset. So they’ll rig the market to their advantage and to society’s disadvantage. Innovation is harmed by the billionaire class. Is Elon Musk that creative?

    The kind of inequality we see today is matched by pre-world war periods. People instinctively know something is out of synch. So far many have latched onto crank right-wing ideas to ease their minds. Trump and Brexit fall into this category. Both are ready made by economic interests to misdirect attention.

    In short, billionaires act as a brake on innovation and extreme inequality makes us dangerous.

    I would say Crank Left-wing ideas, it sits easier with the young and the disenfranchised. A lot of these people own the media and now the mobs, this is a very old game of blame the establishment.

    Marxist useful idiots.


  • Options
    #270
    ush
    Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭ush


    Mr Meanor wrote: »
    I would say Crank Left-wing ideas, it sits easier with the young and the disenfranchised. A lot of these people own the media and now the mobs, this is a very old game of blame the establishment.

    Marxist useful idiots.

    Yes. The media is owned almost entirely by the disenfranchised and the young. The sick and the lame sold their holding in the crash of '08.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    ush wrote: »
    Who are we to deny basic human dignity to hundreds of millions living in poverty?

    What?


Advertisement